Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Even within visual range a fighter's position relative to its opponent (no matter what kind) would decide the advantage held. Conceding this advantage would be unthinkable-which Flanker pilot would agree to allow a Falcon a firing solution on self confidence and superior maneouverability alone or conversely which Falcon pilot would agree to enter a scissors with a Flanker?

Who would have first visual?That pilot, irrespective of the aircraft, would seize the day.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Even within visual range a fighter's position relative to its opponent (no matter what kind) would decide the advantage held. Conceding this advantage would be unthinkable-which Flanker pilot would agree to allow a Falcon a firing solution on self confidence and superior maneouverability alone or conversely which Falcon pilot would agree to enter a scissors with a Flanker?

Who would have first visual?That pilot, irrespective of the aircraft, would seize the day.

I mean if they go head to head, when they come visual contact, for identify, and after the beginning of divergence, when they go on first turn, to go to the tail of each other, who have better chance to make first shot ?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Block 50/52 Viper isn't the best dogfighter. IIRC I've heard it's either the 30 or 40, but I forget which. They have the best t/w ratio. The 50/52 is heavier but doesn't have a thrust increase to cover it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Block 50/52 Viper isn't the best dogfighter. IIRC I've heard it's either the 30 or 40, but I forget which. They have the best t/w ratio. The 50/52 is heavier but doesn't have a thrust increase to cover it.

That's interesting. If that's the case then according to Pete Bonanni the F-16A would have been an even better dogfighter than any of the C version.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

To the F-16 question... The Israeli Air Force prefer the early A model they have as a dogfighter and the late models to bomb trucks... They do seem to have the best experience with them I think as a fighter...

Also a question like this is not a good one as the pilots of all the jets will fight to their jets best abilities A Flanker will stand off and wear you down and will only close in if required same with the eagle why use a heater when you can kill at 40nm with an Amraam ? As to the Block 50/52 your going to fire your Amraams first. No sense in causing problems for yourself... Thats how the Tornado F-3's worked over F-16's hit them with Skyflash from BVR that way no tangling with a jet more agile than you...

From what I understand talking to the Viper bros, the Block 30 was considered the best overall close in dogfighter of the Viper series. The USN boys used them as aggressors (F-16N) and that was part of the reason.

However, a clean Block 50 was no slouch...you could put one into a Max G turn, and at full grunt it would actually accelerate after being established in the turn.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I read some fairly detailed evaluation of the F-16 against the MiG-29 by an ex Fighter Weapons School instructor qualified on F-15, F-16 and the MiG-29 at the F-16net website. According to him, prior to the Block 50/52 Vipers the Block 30 was easily the best dogfighter, but the Block 50/52 are better again despite being heavier. He said that some pilots did actually prefer the analogue FBW for its feel but there was actually better authority with the digital FBW and in the Block 50/52 the engine power is a huge leap compensating for increased weight. He compares the MiG-29A to the Block 30 however because he says when they were first on strength in central Europe that's the model that was conteporary. There was a bonus with the analogue FBW too in that the pilot could force it to exceed the maximum alpha limitation for short moments where the later digital FBW AoA limiter was a little too effective. This is a benefit combating the Fulcrum because in that aircraft the pilot can actually switch off the safety control system and its AoA limiter completely and the aircraft was still stable, so this is how Russians can run around doing 30-AoA in manoeuvres (normally limited to about 28-AoA iirc, Vipers are limited to something like 25-AoA iirc before the control system starts bringing the nose down automatically).

Now the same feller gave a short evaluation of the Fulcrum-A against the F-15C while he was at it, so whilst being presumptuous I've inferred some characteristics between the vipers of the Block 30 and 50/52 versus the F-15C, as well as watching Eagles perform against Aggressor Vipers in Red Flag. His comments about the Eagle were related to going up against a Fulcrum however.

One thing, according to him the Fulcrum and the Viper are actually very very well matched in close combat characteristics. Vipers can sustain a better turn, Fulcrums compensate with high off-boresight capability and the helmet designator though. Once they climb advantage starts to go to the Fulcrum but down low the Viper is actually quite a bit faster generally speaking, with less effort, and far more refinement, oodles more SA and a quantum leap in ease of flying. That said a Fulcrum can match it almost to a T, but only if it has a very good pilot who's working a whole lot harder to achieve the same performance standards. The Block 30 can use some instantaneous manoeuvres the later models can't, but the Block 50/52 is more stable and responsive and gives nothing away to the Fulcrum if altitudes rise so overall it's more dangerous. He thinks a Block 30 is a good match with some clear advantages going to each aircraft, but the Block 50/52 is clearly superior, in his opinion. If he was going to take an earlier model Viper though, it'd be a Block 30 since the interim were heavier without a substantial power increase to compensate and that little, all-out performance compromise is enough to put a Fulcrum on top in the hands of a good pilot.

With the Eagle the altitude disadvantages in dogfight handling was more pronounced than the Block 30. Whilst the Eagle was faster than the Fulcrum at height it couldn't match its instantaneous turn or nose authority (I think I'm using the right terminology). The Fulcrum could bring itself around quicker. At low altitude however the Eagle is an immensely strong airframe the Fulcrum just can't keep up with and like with the best Vipers the Fulcrum just can't sustain the same kind of turns. An Eagle is actually at an advantage mixing it up near the deck against a Fulcrum, which is counter-intuitive for a much heavier warplane and the Fulcrum is only really more agile when they both get some air under the wings. But here the Eagle can extend and just has to avoid falling into the Fulcrum's kind of fight which is just a bit similar to mixing it up with other small, agile warplanes which USAF pilots are trained to do. Hope I'm remembering that part right.

So from this I would infer that the Eagle is very close to a Viper all round if it's a Block 30, and the Block 50/52 is going to have a slight edge in instantaneous handling as altitudes start to rise, advantage to the Viper for that kind of CWC fight. Backing this up I've watched an F-15C mix it up move for move against a Block 52 (?) through some canyons at Red Flag and turn the tables on the Aggressor for a kill. It was a nice, straight one on one engagement there and they were really pulling out the stops, man that Eagle can boogie down low. I was thoroughly impressed by what seemed to me to be almost impossible manoeuvres.

Also a couple of other points. Fully fuelled most fighters aren't at their best, the Eagle carries more than 6-tons internally to the Viper's approx 3-tons and the type of deployments Eagles are used for don't really wind you up in close combat with full tanks, you wouldn't want them. For a large fighter like an Eagle (or a Flanker) the ideal maximum would be 4-5 tons of internal fuel in a seat of the pants fight. Vipers are fine on max internal, but they're rarely without external tankage and these would be jettisoned. A Flanker carries about 9-tons max but it's severel limited while its long range (internal) tanks are full, they need to be empty to press it to the (approx) 8.5g limitation so again that's about 4-tons worth ideally. For most aerial combat sorties the Flankers is only going to be fuelled with about 4.5 tons anyway, for this reason, the extra long range (internal) tanks are only filled for special missions where they're really needed, which is when NATO models would be carrying external tanks anyway if you traded places.

Also Eagle speed characteristics aren't really affected so much by a full air-to-air complement, they have a 1.78 Mach limitation anyway because of the engine control system (can be overridden by the pilot but only for authorised emergencies as the engines have to be fully torn down after landing, but it'll theoretically get up to somewhere around 2.5 Mach if the pilot overrides the control system), similarly a Flanker isn't really bothered by carrying 4 or 6 Archers or 4 Archers and a pair of R27. I haven't read conclusively if it has genuine limitations when carrying a full air-air complement of ten missiles, it's only around 2 tons of ordnance and a lot of its world records were set carrying that (specifically for that reason, to demonstrate theoretical performance fully armed for air-air although in actual fact the fire control system and other non-essential avionics were removed from the test vehicle). Still from what I understand the Flanker handbooks only mention a g-limitation if internal fuel exceeds 4 tons and it doesn't matter if it has a full air-air complement, but I should think it logical the extra drag of ten missiles would impact maximum speed performance...but that's only going to slow it down to maybe 1.8 Mach anyway which is still contemporary with NATO models and once it dumps off some missiles it gets much quicker.

Vipers and Fulcrums are a different story though. A Fulcrum loses speed performance carrying more than a couple of Archers although again it's got a bit of superiority here to compensate, whilst Vipers lose a lot of speed with anything other than wingtip sidewinders and is really more like a 1.8 Mach fighter when armed for BVR or carrying extra sidewinders.

Here is where the Hornet gets interesting because it's got a very effortless supercruise (armed for air to air, ie. sparrows/sidewinders it can cruise supersonic at 75% power demonstrated with RAAF Hornets). In outright seat of the pants manoeuvring it can't quite match the Viper but it has some very sophisticated avionics and control systems and is still very well armed without carrying anything under the wings on pylons, plus right off the deck it has a terrific initial climb that's hard to match with anything. Something like a Flanker has a better sustained climb though, but these two aircraft are rated as a very nice match up.

So basically the ideal trim for close air combat varies between the different aircraft. A pair of wingtip sidewinders and 3 tons fuel for the Viper. Probably 4 Archers for the Fulcrum and 4.5 tons fuel. 5 tons internal fuel and full air-air load for the Eagle. 4 tons internal fuel and six missiles for the Flanker. 4 tons internal fuel and nominal air-air load (4 missiles) for the Hornet.

These trims should return maximum performance specifications. Noteworthy is that by far the Hornet is going to have the best flying endurance and the Eagle is going to have the best weapons endurance. Meanwhile the Fulcrum is only going to be in the air for a matter of minutes on the burners.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not that I'd know much about it Cali but I could guess that you're exactly right. I understand Eagles are being used as Flanker aggressors, I wonder if they have any actual modifications or are just handled by their pilots so as to act as close as possible to Flanker performance. Those Aggressor pilots must be seriously skilled fellers, not flying to win but flying to match the aircraft characteristics they're meant to represent as closely as possible, that takes art.